Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: General MOVIE & DVD Discussions
Forum Name: Disagree w/Any Past RAZZIES®??
Forum Discription: Even we don't ALWAZE get it right. If you don't agree with any of our many years of choices, here's your chance to argue your case...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1059Printed Date: March 31 2015 at 3:06pm

Topic: Stallone is NOT such a bad actor!Posted By: That 60s hippie
Subject: Stallone is NOT such a bad actor!
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 4:39am

Response from Head RAZZberry: And COP LAND was just about the ONLY appearance by Stallone since 1984's RHINESTONE for which he was not a Razzie nominee. I'll admit, for Stallone, he was okay in that ONE film. But he's made about 2 DOZEN movies over the last 22 years, in most of which he's been a monosyllabic, musclebound moron who blows things up, or beats them to a pulp. If you think we've been harsh to Sly, name FIVE good movies he's been in (other than the already mentioned COP LAND and the 1976 original ROCKY). Bet you can't...

-------------

Posted By: That 60s hippie
Date Posted: June 09 2006 at 9:17pm

ignore the acting and just enjoy the movies he's made- i loved Rambo, judge dread, Demolition man and asassins.

Its just entertainment

Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: June 10 2006 at 6:14am

Besides Cop Land and Rocky, I can't.

Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 2:26pm

I believe that Stallone should have won the RAZZIE in 2001 for WORST ACTOR (in Driven) instead of Charlton Heston...

You know there's no school of acting that would ever cover Stallone's style and still expect to be in business...

Response from Head RAZZberry: Actually, Heston "won" as Worst SUPPORTING Actor in 2001 (beating out Burt Reynolds in DRIVEN). Stallone "lost" Worst Actor to Tom Green in FREDDY GOT FINGERED, which swept the Razzies that year...

-------------Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...

Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 2:50pm

Stallone was recently on Inside the Actors' Studio....seriously.

-------------

Posted By: Razzilla
Date Posted: November 18 2006 at 10:12am

I KNEW I left a word out of that post...

Thanks for the correction before I even got to it...

-------------Comparing Uwe Boll's movies to a sack of horse manure will only get you sued by every fertilizer company in existence...

Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: December 30 2006 at 10:51am

Rocky 2 and Rocky 3 were good, just not as good as the original. I haven't seen Rocky 4 (and I don't ever plan to) because I have heard that it is bad, but how can Stallone win a razzie for playing the same character he was nominated for an Oscar for playing?

Posted By: moorlock2003
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 11:43am

Stallone is not everyone's cup of tea, that's for sure. But there is this nagging feeling that he really should, at some point, bow out. Hell, even Madonna and Eddie Murphy recently said they were giving up acting. Bravo! Best news I've heard in a long time. Time will tell if they keep their promises.

-------------Fred Cooper

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: December 23 2008 at 4:55pm

The naysayers haven't even watched the vast majority of Sly's movies.

Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 4:46am

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While I cannot vouch for our other several hundred Voting RAZZIE Members, I myself have actually suffered through every film for which Stallone has received each of his record 30 nominations. And while he does occasionally rise about the low-brow expectations of his audience (COP LAND and ROCKY BALBOA come to mind) Sly is, in my estimation, a one-note, two trick pony (those ponies named Rocky Balboa and John Rambo) who should himself be amazed and grateful at the level of success his limited vision and talents have given him...

-------------Ye Olde Head RAZZberry

Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: December 24 2008 at 6:37pm

I have seen many of Sly's movies, and he does play the same one dimensional character who uses 90% of his cerebrum to converse in a level below the first Dick-and-Jane reader.

I will confess that there are times I keep playing Rhinestone over and over again (where he's dressed like a pimp on Sesame Street as he warbles "Drinkenstein").

-------------The WORST Movie of 2015--Get Hard!

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: December 25 2008 at 6:32am

That statement proves otherwise.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Your syntax (and your command of English) both seem rather vague here -- Which "statement" proves WHAT "otherwise"...

[/QUOTE=JoeBacon] I have seen many of Sly's movies, and he does play the same one dimensional character who uses 90% of his cerebrum to converse in a level below the first Dick- and-Jane reader. I will confess that there are times I keep playing "Rhinestone" over and over again where he is dressed like a pimp on Sesame Street as he warbles "Drinkenstein". [/QUOTE]

-------------

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 31 2008 at 1:37am

Although I can't defend Stallone's acting, since "Rocky 1" and "Copland" are the only two good examples, I do agree that he should be spared for 2008 because there are biggest fish to fry like Uwe Boll, Seltzerberg, and the hacks behind "Meet Dave", "Love Guru", "Hottie and Nottie", and "HSM3".

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 16 2010 at 5:27pm

You should say, Stallone is a great actor! I totally disagree with all wins and nominations he got, except for Rambo 2, 3 and Rocky 4 (but just for the acting, the directing was a stupid choice of Razzie)!

Stallone is charming, touching, inspiring, tallented... He is far from the other stupid un-tallented action guys who is Arnold Schwarzenegger who in my opinion should have took all the bad comments and Razzie nominations and wins that Stallone won!

Come on, what does make the stupid comedies that Schwarzenegger made better than the Stallone's comedies that are in my opinion entertaining (Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot was pretty funny and I don't see what Stallone did bad in this movie to receive ''Worst Actor'')!

Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 12:34pm

After a long time analyzing the RAZZIEs' history, I knew there were many, far worse movies than Sylvester Stallone's. For 1988, I didn't like that Cocktail got Worst Picture over Mac & Me AND Caddyshack II, but part of me was grateful that "winner" wasn't Rambo III. For 1990, I would've picked Graffiti Bridge for Worst Picture, but again, I also wished I could consider myself grateful it wasn't Rocky V. Then, for 2008, I breathed a BIG sigh of relief that Rambo IV evaded any RAZZIE nominations. My colleagues loved that movie. Compared with Step Brothers, it was easy to understand why, though Rambo IV wasn't great. Perhaps the Worst Picture category's biggest enigma is Rambo: First Blood II beating Revolution in 1985.

-------------

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 1:02pm

I don't know why the Razzies seem to target Stallone all the time, because there are worst actors than him. As for Stallone, well, I never cared for him outside of "Rocky 1".

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 3:22pm

I don't think a careful evalution of the evidence supports the notion that Stallone is targeted all the time. However, he has set himself up on a position where his movies are automatically going to at least get our attention. Head Razz was right on in an earlier post on this thread when he suggested that Stallone is essentially a two trick pony. Actually, I'd narrow that scope to one trick pony because I personally don't see any significant difference in Rambo and Rocky as characters.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 18 2010 at 3:30pm

Well, he has "won" the most Razzies of all time, so it would at least seem like the Razzies are out to get him. However, I have respect for the voters who spared him last year and instead went after a much more worthy target that until that year managed to get away razzie free ... Uwe "Toilet" Boll as a new member of the Razzie Lifetime of Bad Achievement Hall of Shame.

Kinda agree... but this is just because until this time Razzies hate Stallone it wasn't a real analyze because Rambo: First Blood Part.2 is not SO bad and by far better than Revolution!

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 7:53pm

Originally posted by Sanndman228715

He was good in Cop Land...at least, I heard that he was.

Response from Head RAZZberry: And COP LAND was just about the ONLY appearance by Stallone since 1984's RHINESTONE for which he was not a Razzie nominee. I'll admit, for Stallone, he was okay in that ONE film. But he's made about 2 DOZEN movies over the last 22 years, in most of which he's been a monosyllabic, musclebound moron who blows things up, or beats them to a pulp. If you think we've been harsh to Sly, name FIVE good movies he's been in (other than the already mentioned COP LAND and the 1976 original ROCKY). Bet you can't...

In other words, you haven't watched any of his other films aside from Rocky and Cop Land.

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 7:58pm

Nobody who has seen his films would say that. He has played a variety of different characters. Stallone is extraordinarily diverse and talented and has played a wide range of characters. Perhaps if those who created the Razzies actually had lives or a talent of their own they wouldn't feel the need to fabricate, exaggerate, and generalize and they wouldn't have to latch on to other people like a bunch of parasites to compensate for their immense insecurities and their complete and utter incompetency.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I don't think a careful evalution of the evidence supports the notion that Stallone is targeted all the time. However, he has set himself up on a position where his movies are automatically going to at least get our attention. Head Razz was right on in an earlier post on this thread when he suggested that Stallone is essentially a two trick pony. Actually, I'd narrow that scope to one trick pony because I personally don't see any significant difference in Rambo and Rocky as characters.

-------------

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 8:20pm

"A variety of different characters"? You're kidding right? Stallone has played a cop type character for at least a dozen movies, the only thing that changes is his character's name and their base of location. And if our opinions are so pointless, then why are you bothering to argue with us?

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 28 2010 at 8:43pm

Totally agree with Balboa6... Stallone is a tallented actor who played a variety of caracters. To support my point of view, I'll name some different kinds of roles he played and played perfectly in my opinion (and the opinion of the general public):

- A nostalgic, inspiring, touching and charming boxer in the Rocky movies, except the third and fourth ones and on those I'll probably agree that they were not really good movies and not great performances from Sly EXCEPT the really touching Mickey's dead scene in Rocky III in which Stallone gives an exceptional acting.

- A traumatized war veteran in Rambo First Blood and Rambo 4, and I don't even talk about the crapes that are Rambo 2 and 3 (entertaining crapes anyway lol).

- A syndicated employee in F.I.S.T. (great movie, great performance).

- A desesperated man who wants to have some money in Paradise Alley.

- A gangster who wants to have revenge because his brother was killed in Get Carter (GREAT performance by Sly I really don't see why he got a nomination once again for worst actor).

And you want more examples... just say!

Ok now 5 good movies except Rocky and Cop Land, I'm ready to bet that you guys never saw:

- Paradise Alley

- F.I.S.T.

- Victory

- First Blood

- Rocky II, V and Balboa

All great movies... and I didn't name them all I just got best examples of great Sly's movies!

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: You're actually going to argue F.I.S.T. is a good movie/performance?? When I saw it in a theatre in its original release, the audience founds Sly's mumbling delivery so confusing that there was one scene in which they all thought he was still speaking English, when in fact the dialogue was in Polish!

Also, I am getting tired of your insisting that none of us has ever even seen the crappy movies your idol keeps on making -- I have already said, multiple times, that I myself have actually seen every indefensible one of the piece of sheit movies for which he's been a RAZZIE nominee -- and wish there were some way I could get all those wasted hours of my life back.

You like Stallone? FINE! But please stop acting as though you, with your limited command of English and miniscule sense of what constitutes true entertainment, are the smartest guy in the room. Your admiration for Sly instantly proves otherwise...

-------------

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 29 2010 at 8:02am

Okay, but this is like going on the path of you complaining about Christian Bale only having two good performances in his entire career. That's only 5 good roles for Stallone that had variety to them. Other than those roles, he's played a policemen type character through the rest of his career. That's not variety, that's type-casting.

-------------"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: January 29 2010 at 10:24pm

"caracters"? "deseperated"?

This debate is over.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 5:58am

This is why i love coming back here, i always get entertained by the diversity of the arguments. On one end of the spectrum you have two dip-dunks like balboa and tarod who literally kiss stallones steroid/hgh infected nut sack no matter how bad the movie is. Next thing there going to tell us is that Over the Top deserved to sweep the academy awards and is a piece of cinematic genius. Seriously do you guys even believe what you say or are you just trolls trying to get a rise out of people, but either way don't stop on my account, it makes for a very interesting debate, and by interesting i mean i laugh my ass off. Then on the other side you have saturn and headrazz who get all up in arms over stallone worse than kanye west at an awards show. I can just picture them at their computers reading about stallone's newest movie projects, reeling in fear and going "STALLONE SCARY... STALLONE MAKE SUN GO AWAY!" Either way i hope this debate continues, it doesn't bring anything new to the table but at least it's more entertaining than any of the wide releases coming out this week. Oh and saturn are you really doing the whole grammar police thing? That is so aintitcool.com, your better than that. And by the way headrazz, the new site runs great i can actually access the forums on my cell phone, good work.

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 6:37am

Don't worry, Mayhem, I'm sure this little "debate" will keep going. These Sly Lovers lost most respect from us when they claimed Stallone is among the greatest actors of all time, whose roles have been so diverse ... when he's played a policeman a dozen times and has starred in 10 movies as the same two roles! Meanwhile, Christian Bale, who has had a diverse career of different characters, and has only appeared in one sequel, and has had two or three Oscar worthy roles that were overlooked ... he is the worst actor in past decade and deserves to get razzed. Why? because he yelled at a guy who was too stupid to realize you should be fixing the lightning BEFORE shooting the scene, not DURING. I mean, that alone is a Razzie worthy trespass, apparently in their world.

But yeah, they are Sly Lovers in a Sly Hating forum. They will not last long.

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 8:55am

First, no my first language is not English, sorry for that! I'm speaking French and Russian! But I'm still good in English!

After, yes I assume, I'm a Sly lover in a Sly Hating Forum and I don't think that my arguments will change anything to your opinion but at least I want to share what I think so that's what I do.

But somewhere you have wrong, I'm not a Sly-fan who hates every others single actors in the world and didn't say he's the best actor of all time... I appreciate the movies, I loves movies, movies is a passion for me... I appreciate everything done with smoothness and tallent... sometimes, I could even enjoy bad movies... BUT im MY opinion, Sly has done a lot of good movies and has tallent and this is why I'm gonna never understand why you Razze him for the 95% of what he's doing!

And also please say me... In what is Stallone worse that Steven Seagal? Jean-Claude Van Damme? Chuck Norris? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Vin Diesel? Orlando Bloom? Paul Walker? Nicholas Cage? And a lot of other crapier actors? (I was going to name Christian Bale but no one would agree with me so...)

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 12:58pm

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

And also please say me... In what is Stallone worse that Steven Seagal? Jean-Claude Van Damme? Chuck Norris? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Vin Diesel? Orlando Bloom? Paul Walker? Nicholas Cage? And a lot of other crapier actors? (I was going to name Christian Bale but no one would agree with me so...)

You may claim him to be better than those other actors you mentioned, but he's really only on par with them.

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 3:06pm

Originally posted by Michaels

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

And also please say me... In what is Stallone worse that Steven Seagal? Jean-Claude Van Damme? Chuck Norris? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Vin Diesel? Orlando Bloom? Paul Walker? Nicholas Cage? And a lot of other crapier actors? (I was going to name Christian Bale but no one would agree with me so...)

You may claim him to be better than those other actors you mentioned, but he's really only on par with them.

Daylight, Assassins, Cliffhanger, Rocky 2-5, and RAMBO are all great. Tango & Cash was also very entertaining. They aren't even remotely bad movies. Then again coming from you, it's extremely difficult to take any kind of criticism seriously.

Posted By: Balboa6
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 3:25pm

F.I.S.T. is a fantastic movie and Sylvester Stallone delivered an excellent performance, evolving throughout the film from a lowly union worker who, over the period of several decades, goes through a transformation and resents immensely the fact that he has become what he hated when he was a young man, having ties with the mafia and having sacrificed his integrity in order to do what he thought was right. It's a marvelous, underrated performance and film and certainly doesn't merit the negative criticism you dish out, then again you have no credibility so it really doesn't matter, does it? . Anyone who thinks he mumbles simply is not listening. It's that simple. Personally, I think you're full of sh*t and highly doubt you saw it in the theater, but you say you are getting tired of people doubting whether or not you've seen all of his movies; well, then try to do more than lie, exaggerate and generalize. It's all you do. You can't seem to give legitimate, solid reasons that make any sense. Insulting Stallone due to your inexplicable, irrational grudge against him doesn't constitute reasoning. What constitutes entertainment isn't one, specific thing. Sylvester Stallone has inspired an enormous amount of people throughout the world. His artistic contributions have inspired me greatly as a writer and actor, not to mention his vast knowledge when it comes to health and fitness, as well as his philosophical approach to life. People like yourself simply do not get anything. You have absolutely no idea what Rocky is even about. To you it's just "a boxing movie," and you use every overwhelmingly tired, overused cliche' to try to describe your reasons for bashing the franchise. The sequels are just as great. All you are seeing is numbers--"oh there's this many...duhhhhh......." Each one is an examination of a life in progress. To think one film is enough to say everything there is to say about that character is pretty stupid. You and the rest of the uneducated, pseudo-intellectual, clueless wannabes who run this worthless piece of dirtbag sh*t, meaningless site list films which don't even remotely belong in so much as a subpar category, let alone being "bad films." Al Pacino has made an enormous amount of sh*tty films. Also, how many times has Robert Deniro played a gangster or a cop? Oh I forgot, it's them; they get a free pass. It's justified and perfectly acceptable. It's just pure brilliance, but if Sylvester Stallone plays a handful of different characters who happen to work in some branch of law enforcement it's a sin and deserves condemnation. You people aren't fooling anyone. You prove you haven't seen all of his films with each post and your posts progressively seem more and more desperate to convince others you've seen them, which your words say otherwise. Sylvester Stallone has proven time and time again he has astonishing ability as a dramatic actor as well as his great physical prowess, which enables him to do action oriented roles as well. He is very diverse and is on par with some of the greats such as Clint Eastwood, Mickey Rourke, James Cagney, etc. Perhaps whenever you people come up with something legitimate, based on something in reality, people will take you seriously. Until then, don't expect much. I'll take your assertion that being a Sylvester Stallone fan is an indication of low intelligence as a compliment. Seeing as how he is extraordinarily intelligent and sophisticated, that's a pretty nice ego boost.

Partially agree with those which are not Bold.... PARTIALLY.... because I think that those performances aren't great but VERY far from being as bad as every performances that the actors who I named gave to us...

And for the bold selections.... WHAT THE HELL???? Are you blind or something, do you even know what a bad performance is???? Honnestly, I don't think so!

Cobra is a cool movie in which Stallone is such a styly man and he gives to us such a very subtle performance!!! VERY far from being a bad performance.... By far better than any crappier performances that Arnold Schwarzenegger EVER gave to us!!! And this is just a medium performance by Sly, but very styly and subtle! Not a masterpiece, but by far better than every Schwarzenegger's movies except the first 2 Terminators which are the ONLY good Schwarzenegger's movies!

Over the Top is a touching movie and Sly gives to us a touching performance, I cannot even believe that is possible to bash him for this touching and inspiring movie in which Stallone plays a father who wants to have his son back!

I won't give my opinion for every movies I selected, but just try to make you understand why I think you've wrong!

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 6:43pm

Originally posted by Balboa6

Then again coming from you, it's extremely difficult to take any kind of criticism seriously.

Totally agree!

Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 31 2010 at 8:08am

Guys, let tell you a little something about myself. I have spent a large time of my childhood watching movies, I took classes about film in school, I was the president of my college's film club, I made short films for that club and for local filmmakers, I have written a dozen screenplays, have watched the Oscars and Indie Spirit Awards each and every year that I can, and I the only TV I watch are movie channels like HBO, Encore, the Sundance Channel, the IFC Channel, Turner Classic Movies, and Starz. So I think I would know a good movie from a bad one, thank you very much.

Now, I understand that you guys love "Rocky 1". You doesn't? It's a entertaining movie, it's an inspiring movie, it's a classic movie. However, since then, Stallone's career has been one-note. In a role in which he plays a down on this luck, wannabe boxer without a bright future, I can understand why it would be okay for him to play a mumbling, look of confusion on his face at all times, simpleton. However, he seems to carry that same mumbling speech pattern and look of confusion into every other movie he did since then. And considering I listed 24 of his worst movies and out of those 24, you could only point out 10 good ones (or at least "not that bad" ones), that's not a good track record either, in fact, it looks kinda polarizing.

I have nothing against you guys or your opinions. But let's be real. Stallone is not the greatest actor to ever live, he's not on par with Robert De Niro. Sure, his movies might be "entertaining", but "entertaining" doesn't always mean "good". And I even agreed last year, when the Razzies were heavily considering Razzing Sly for the millionth time for "Rambo 4", I stepped in to said "Okay, guys, you Razzed him 10 times already. You should move on; you have bigger fish to fry". Sure enough, the Sly Guy didn't make it to the final round of that year.

So guys, I respect your opinions, but don't be going around saying that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about. We've either studied film all our lives or we currently work in film in some form or another. So I think we are going to know best about what a bad movie is, and that is why these awards exist in the first place. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 12:44am

Here's a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiBqdmelCVk -

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

You're actually going to argue F.I.S.T. is a good movie/performance?? When I saw it in a theatre in its original release, the audience founds Sly's mumbling delivery so confusing that there was one scene in which they all thought he was still speaking English, when in fact the dialogue was in Polish!

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 29 2010 at 8:59pm

Watched the clip -- I heard a lot of double negatives, and Stallone apparently trying to motivate people to ... punch other people out with their fists?

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 12:35am

Eh...that's where watching the whole film helps a bit. Just an idea!

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 30 2010 at 4:38am

The clip you linked to isn't going to make anyone here scream "Oh my God, we were wrong, that performance was f***ing awesome!". Stallone fans, you're not going to win anyone over here. You'd sooner see Republicans voting "yes" to adding the public option to the health bill that they already universally rejected than see a Razzie member say Stallone is a good actor, outside of "Rocky 1" and "Copland".

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: scoobs23
Date Posted: April 04 2010 at 8:16pm

The video was directed towards the poster I quoted.

I could care less whether or not your opinion will change or not. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to put down what I have to say on this topic, just as you did. I'm obviously of the minority on this board, and regardless of what either of us say, neither of us will change our views. We'll just end up going around in circles making this discussion pointless, which sounds like endless amounts of fun.

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: April 04 2010 at 8:25pm

Very well, then. Let's just say we'll leave it alone and agree to disagree.

Originally posted by scoobs23

The video was directed towards the poster I quoted.

I could care less whether or not your opinion will change or not. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to put down what I have to say on this topic, just as you did. I'm obviously of the minority on this board, and regardless of what either of us say, neither of us will change our views. We'll just end up going around in circles making this discussion pointless, which sounds like endless amounts of fun.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Christian Bale, Steven Seagal and Orlando Bloom are the worst actors of all time!

So -- I'm right, you're wrong!

End of debate! :)

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 12:25pm

That's really not a debate, that's a series of opinions. Bale is nowhere near the same level of bad acting as Seagal. As listed above, Bale has had at least three good roles -- Seagal has none.

Frankly, I think all Stallone fans are just so blinded by their beloved memories of "Rocky" that they refuse to see that EVERYTHING else he has made has been hit or miss. But that's just my opinion.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 12:48pm

At least you admit that Seagal is such an awful actor!

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 1:27pm

Oh come on! What am I going to defend Seagal with?

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 1:44pm

BHB is correct. You are stating opinions, not presenting a factual argument. Nonetheless, the point is highly debatable. Let's consider the names on your list:

Stallone: a great actor based upon what? The first Rocky won an Oscar, almost certainly because the AMPAS voting system is mathematically flawed, as I have explained here on a few occasions. It is arguably one of the 3 or 4 worst movies ever to win Best Picture.

Di Caprio: over-rated

Dustin Hoffman: Outstanding (but not immune from making occasional stinkers)

Al Pacino: Ditto

Tom Hanks: Very solid actor after a shaky start to his career. Probably not in the top 10 of all time. In fact, your entire list is biased to the past couple of decades, which makes it suspect.

Christian Bale, Steven Seagal and Orlando Bloom are the worst actors of all time!

So -- I'm right, you're wrong!

End of debate! :)

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 4:21pm

???

WTF??? You certainly don't know what you are talking about... If these actors are not in your top 10, I'm scared to know who is....

Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;)

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Since you are relatively new to our Forum (and English does not appear to be your native language) I am willing to cut you some slack -- But as a general rule, this Forum should not be considered a place to snipe at those with whom you disagree. In future, please refrain from personal attacks and insults, and limit your postings to discussion of the subject at hand...

-------------

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 4:27pm

LOL, so right! :P Win!

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

At least you admit that Seagal is such an awful actor!

Oh come on, what am I going to defend him with?

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 5:35pm

I think might want to take your own advice, because I don't know what you have against Bale. Okay, he lost it and did an epic rant against a crew member. Big deal. His voice as Batman sucked. So what? But to say he sucks as an actor is just foolish if you're basing it on stuff that didn't happen on screen or only ruined ONE movie. I mean to say he's on the same level as Seagal, wow, compare apples oranges much?

Oh, and Dicaprio is over-rated. The dude is good, but let's face it, had it not been for "Titanic" making a boatload of money (no pun intended) no one would care about him, and he would just have been just another child star who faded away.

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

???

WTF??? You certainly don't know what you are talking about... If these actors are not in your top 10, I'm scared to know who is....

Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;)

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:29pm

I can't say you that you are wrong on DiCaprio... But in my own book, he's equal with Stallone as my favorite actor -- that's it! I cannot do anything with it -- Stallone made me love movies, and it's thanks to him that I'm now a movies buff... It started when I was a child so I will NEVER say anything against this guy who inspired me, and got me started loving movies! It's all from youth! With DiCaprio, it's because every performances that he does seems to be perfect in my opinion, that's it!

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:39pm

Okay then. We all have our favorite actors or directors from our childhoods, the ones who made us love movies. However, when we grow up, we should be able to tell good movies from bad movies, even ones that our favorite actor or director did.

I learned to love movies because of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, but with their recent movie choices like the "Star Wars" prequels, "Indiana Jones 4", and producing "Transformers 2", I seriously question if they have run out of creative talent. Everyone's career has to peak sometime, and just because you liked them in the past shouldn't mean you should blind yourself to the point you think EVERYTHING they do is great. Currently, I think Chris Nolan is a great storyteller, but not every movie he has directed is perfect, and I'll be the first to admit it.

If you're really a fan of Stallone, you should be able to accept it when people disagree with you about his movies, rather than declare the man's movies all perfect, and claim that anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

I can't tell you that you are wrong on DiCaprio... But in my own book he's equaly with Stallone my favourite actor, that's it! I cannot do anything with it, Stallone made me love movies and it's thanks to him that I'm now a movies buff... It started when I was a child so I will NEVER say something against this guy who inspired me and made me started love movies! It's all from youth! DiCaprio it's because every performances that he's doing seem to be perfect in my opinion, that's it!

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 6:49pm

Personal attacks are such a compelling addition to a debate.

Nonetheless, while I've never actually sat down and compiled a list of my own, here are a few names worthy of consideration on such a list: Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Charlie Chaplin (who wrote, directed and scored all of his movies as well as acting in them, and originally had to express ideas and emotions without the use of words) Lawrence Olivier, Gregory Peck, Clark Gable, Jack Lemon, Steve McQueen, Burt Lancaster, Michael Caine, Johnny Depp, Henry Fonda, Kirk Douglas...I could list probably 50 others worthy of consideration, and my list would not be myopic enough to deny the existance of cinema prior to about 1976.

The point is that every one of the actors I listed above is FAR superior to Stallone and/or Leo DiCaprio. I am confident that my statement would be supported by virtually EVERY professional movie critic in North America, and probably most of them in Europe...

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

???

WTF??? You certainly don't know what you are talking about... If these actors are not in your top 10, I'm scared to know who is....

Just a question... are you blind or something? You certainly don't know what is an awful acting... But don't worry I have 2 solution for you... Buy yourself new glasses, or stop doing crack! ;)

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 7:36pm

BurnHollywoodBurn, I agree with you on Spielberg and Lucas -- me, too! They are part of what made me love movies, and I agree that now I'm not really sure of the quality of their work! The Star Wars prequels were horrible and about Indiana Jones #4, it's strange but I enjoyed it!

So well, in a way we could say that we agree on some points! And thanks I was looking for the word ''childhood''... it was in my head somewhere but I didn' find it before you said it!

Another good point about this forum, it helps me with my English! :)

-------------

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: July 20 2010 at 8:47pm

Well, it's good that TaRaN-RoD agree with most of what is said here, unlike certain other posters who seem to go out of their way to disagree with EVERYTHING that is posted here.

Originally posted by TaRaN-RoD

BurnHollywoodBurn I agree with you on Spielberg and Lucas me too they are part of what made me love movies and I agree that now I'm not really sure of the quality of their work! Star Wars prequel were horrible and about Indiana Jones it's strange but I enjoyed it! So well, in a way we could say that we agree on some points! And thanks I was looking for the word ''childhood''... it was in my head somewhere but I didn' find it before you said it!

Another good point of this forum, it helps me with my English! :)

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:43am

Films that made a mark on our childhood are worthy of credit though, even if we dont love them as much now, because the helped shape us into the people we are....at least, for me they did!

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:08pm

Sorry, but just because an actor made a film that you enjoyed in your childhood, that doesn't mean he is by default, a flawless actor. No actor is. We're all fans of actors/actresses/directors, etc., but that shouldn't give us this bias, uncritical eye about everything that actor, etc. does. Sure, Stallone made an endearing movie, but that doesn't stop the fact that he mumbles in every movie he stars in and his writing is far from anything mind-blowing.

I'll even take an example. If you have read my past posts, you know I'm a fan of Christopher Nolan. In my mind, he's is best filmmaker out there right now; so far he has yet to make a truly bad movie. Now, I'm fully aware that not everyone agrees with these statements, they may think his movies are too boring or too complex or too moody, but I respect their opinion. However, if say "Batman 3" comes out, and the plot is full of moon crater sized plot holes, and the acting is wooden and emotionless, and the dialongue is on par with a 3rd grader reading level, and the editing is without a steady pace, then hell, I'll admit I was wrong and that Nolan is not a flawless director and I'll vote for him in the Razzies same as anyone else.

But that's where you Shatner and Stallone fans come in. You forgive and forget all mistakes made by these actors and proclaim that they "geniuses", "artists", and that "they deserved to be showered with Oscars and Emmys", etc. Guys, you're fooling only yourselves. Are these men pop culture icons, entertainers, and hammy actors? Yes. Are they masters at their crafts? Sorry, but no! And they will not be remembered as such.

And that is why 600 to 700 Razzie members vote for these men. Because as entertaining as they may have been at one time, when you get past all the warm and fuzzy feelings their past work gives you, you're realize that their acting throughout their careers have been nothing but fluff.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:20pm

When I was 6 years old I enjoyed Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor. I find it unwatchable these days, as is most of Lewis' other cinema work. So just because we might find something appealing as children doesn't make it classic...sometimes it is just crap that appeals to very young minds.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: Julianstark
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 8:38pm

I second all of the below. I mean, Robert Downey Jr. is my favorite actor, but if he's absolutely horrendous in Due Date (the movie will probably be terrible, and I'm not sure if he can survive it), I'll totally be willing to give him tons of Razzie love.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Sorry, but just because an actor made a film that you enjoyed in your childhood, that doesn't mean he is by default, a flawless actor. No actor is. We're all fans of actors/actresses/directors, etc., but that shouldn't give us this bias, uncritical eye about everything that actor, etc. does. Sure, Stallone made an endearing movie, but that doesn't stop the fact that he mumbles in every movie he stars in and his writing is far from anything mind-blowing.

I'll even take an example. If you have read my past posts, you know I'm a fan of Christopher Nolan. In my mind, he's is best filmmaker out there right now; so far he has yet to make a truly bad movie. Now, I'm fully aware that not everyone agrees with these statements, they may think his movies are too boring or too complex or too moody, but I respect their opinion. However, if say "Batman 3" comes out, and the plot is full of moon crater sized plot holes, and the acting is wooden and emotionless, and the dialongue is on par with a 3rd grader reading level, and the editing is without a steady pace, then hell, I'll admit I was wrong and that Nolan is not a flawless director and I'll vote for him in the Razzies same as anyone else.

But that's where you Shatner and Stallone fans come in. You forgive and forget all mistakes made by these actors and proclaim that they "geniuses", "artists", and that "they deserved to be showered with Oscars and Emmys", etc. Guys, you're fooling only yourselves. Are these men pop culture icons, entertainers, and hammy actors? Yes. Are they masters at their crafts? Sorry, but no! And they will not be remembered as such.

And that is why 600 to 700 Razzie members vote for these men. Because as entertaining as they may have been at one time, when you get past all the warm and fuzzy feelings their past work gives you, you're realize that their acting throughout their careers have been nothing but fluff.

You always seem to ignore everything I write, or misinterpret it. I'm saying that films that shaped our childhood should receive some amount of favorable recognition, good or bad, because they made us who we are today. I'm not defending them, just saying they shouldn't be down-played.

Lastly, I don't love everything Stallone or Shatner did, I'm just saying that all their good work still shines through, and way brighter than any of the crap they may have made. There are more good contributions to cinema and TV from them than bad. I do think Stallone is an artist (Rocky and First Blood are proof), and Shatner too, for giving us one of the most beloved Science Fiction Characters of all time. Give them both credit. By defending Shatners performance in Star Trek 5, you said I became totally biased, and claimed I love everything the man ever did. I don't. Shame on you for saying so!

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: August 11 2010 at 11:29pm

With all due respect, if I refect upon the person I have become and the course my life has taken, I can think of a lot of people that were major influences. I can't think of a single movie. Those same people probably shaped my tastes in movies and literature. I don't think that those people were brought into or kept in my life as the result of any particular movies. Anyone who came to me and told me that the course of their lives had been significantly shaped by the characters Sly Stallone has brought to the screen probably isn't someone I'd want to spend a lot of time around.

-------------Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 12:01pm

The first Rocky is definitely something with the power to change your life, and people who admit they were changed by that film are very wise people indeed. Even First Blood is admired by some Viet Nam vets for showing that many people who returned from that war were scorned and tossed aside.

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:36pm

Sorry, ramonssun, but your comments prove otherwise that you're still looking at the likes of Stallone and Shatner through rose tinted glasses. Sure, they have given the public iconic pop culture moments, but this doesn't make them "artists". When you are going to be remembered for only one role rather than your entire body of work, you're not an artist, you're an entertainer. Sure, there have been truly talented actors who are only remembered by one role, through no fault of their own, but a true artist has range that goes past the roles that they are most famous for. Yes, Stallone and Shatner have had alot of work since their career making roles, but to this day, they still have that wink at the camera moment as if to say "Hey, it's me, your hero, Rocky or Captain Kirk", because they know for a fact that if it weren't for these roles, no one would pay to see them because their acting is nothing to get all that excited about.

Actors need to be down-played, not all of them are "artists". A select few are, but the rest are just people who are paid to play make believe for our amusement, and Stallone and Shatner are the latter. I'm not downplaying their impact on pop culture, but I'm willing to bet a million dollar that if you went to Hollywood and asked 600 random people on the streets if those two will be remembered as "artists", you will be greeted by laughter.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 12 2010 at 10:48pm

See, this is were i disagree. Many wonderful and vital films in film history were made by directors with otherwise so-so films, but we still call them artists. Donnie Darko is a good example (Richard Kellys other film, the box, was ok, but southland tales sucked). It very intelligent and thought provoking, and artistry is definatley there, hence the word artist. Charles Laughtons only film, Night of the Hunter, is regarded as a masterpeice, and Laughton an artist as well. Boyz in the Hood from John Singelton, is a milestone of African American cinema, and Singelton is respected by many in the film community, even though his other films have recieved average reviews. Michael Cimino, who made one of the greatest anti war films, the deer hunter, made crap the rest of his life, but even he is still sought after for advice on good moviemaking. The examples go on and on. The point im making is that if you make one beautiful, brilliant peice of art, wether it be your only work ever made, or your other work is mediocre in comparison, you still deserve the title of artist for giving us an experience beyond mere entertainment that we wont soon forget. Though i think a debate about that would take up 500 billion pages lol

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 5:54pm

Sorry, but Shatner has done nothing to be declared an "artist". No one seeks him out for acting advice, just an autograph. You can yell "Captain Kirk" all you want, but that's not art, that's being a ham. I give Gene Roddenberry more credit for "Star Trek" than Shatner. Gene actually created the series, it's concepts and it's messages, but once you look past all that, you'll see the overall acting was either hammy or melodramatic.

And the difference between the people you listed and guys like Kubrick, Scorsese, Spielberg and the like, is that because they made ONE masterpiece, they will be remembered only for that ONE masterpiece. True artists make more than one masterpiece and are remembered for their entire body of work, not for just making one good movie and then disappearing from the entertainment business or making crap for the rest of their career.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 13 2010 at 8:25pm

I'm not putting the filmakers i mentioned on as high levels as speilberg and scorcese, but art is art. Even if they only make one artistic film, it took an artist to make it nonetheless. They arent great artists, but artists anyways, whose certain films proved a mastery of the filmaking craft that only an artist could acheive. As for Shatner, I feel certain he is an artist because Kirk is such a beloved character in not only pop culture but sci fi history. To be loved that much in a demanding genre like sci fi must have taken great skill and craftsmenship. If your a fan, perhaps you know what im getting at. He isnt on a level of Nicholson, Dean, Bogey, and the like. Those are great artists. Shatner isnt a great artist like them, thats for sure, but he is an artist. It takes great artistry to create a captain so beloved by many critics as well as fans.

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:59am

Sorry, but as I said, a true artist is able to make a series of masterpieces, like a Spielberg or a Scorcese. Those other guys you mention are more fitting of the title one-hit wonder or one-trick pony. I'm not saying they were without skill to make the movies that they did, but they lacked enough skill to make for lasting and rewarding careers.

As for Shatner, nah, sorry, but I'll take Chris Pike's Kirk over Shatner's anyday. Shatner always played Kirk as a wooden dummy. Pike actually made Kirk come across as a human being with actual emotions. I'm so glad that as time has gone by, "Star Trek" has kept trying to distance itself from the stain of Shatner's bad acting, even to the point of killing his version of Kirk off in "Generations" and not including Shatner in the latest reboot of the series.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 2:45pm

Shatner was offered a part in the remake, but Abrams said Shatner was too busy at the time. The Kirk in the new film came off as a self centered prick, who only wanted fame and glory, wereas Shatners Kirk always was compassionate and caring towards the other crew members. The Star Trek fans still love Shatner dearly, and have far from distanced themselves from him. I'm not sure you have been to enough conventions to state what you have to say about his popularity among admirers of the show. The fans of the show love him so much it's incredible. And at the conventions I went to, they (the people who organized the convention) took polls as to which captain the convention goers preffered. And although they agreed the man who played picard is a better actor, Shatner always won hands down as favorite captain. All four times! Lastly, killing actors off doesn't mean they are unpopular. It does some of the time, but not all the time. Are you saying Dumbledore was killed off in harry potter because he was unpopular? Or what about Spock in Star Trek 2? Sure he was brought back in the third film, but when the second film was being made, they had no intention of ever brining him back. So are you saying fans were distancing themselves from Leonard Nemoy? I doubt it (and if i were you, I would definatley not question Nemoys status as an artist). Lastly, generations featured Kirk for the sole reason of passing on the torch of films from the original to next gen series. To keep him alive would've ruined the point of that film.

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 14 2010 at 6:21pm

Yeah, Pike's Kirk came across as prick, on account of not having a father figure in his life. This is a little something we like to call character development. Also, he spoke like a normal human being, rather than having to pause after every two words like he was going to pass out from lack of oxygen. As for con-goers, come on man, those are bias, uncritical fans, they'll defend Shatner with their dying breath just as you have been doing because they are judging him through their childhood memories. And, just because something is popular, it doesn't mean it's good or better than something else being compared to it. "Transformers 2" made nearly a billion dollars world-wide, yet it still had a 20% at RT and won three top prize Razzies. Lastly, with the killing of Kirk, sure it's passing the torch, but was also a sigh of relief that Shatner was finally gone from the series.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: ramonesun
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 8:44am

Yeah, sorry, I dont belive in the whole my dads dead so I've been a jerk my whole life. That cliches is extremly old and, in a messed up sort of way, that cliche is used in another film, or set of films, that we have been talking about latley....the star wars films. Btw, con goers seemed to hate star trek 5 and generations....so its unwise to call them unbiased. There was no sigh of relief at Kirks death, most fans wouldve preferred if the dude kept making star trek and were upset when Shatners character was killed off. You accuse any fan of being too biased and too crazy. That may be true for some fans, but their are plenty of fans of various films and shows who realize when a bad film is made (Fans of Friday the 13th hated Jason X, fans of highlander hated all its sequels, fans of star wars hated attack of the clones, and fans of Star Trek were very very mixed about Trek 5).

-------------FILM CRITIC AT LARGE

Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: August 16 2010 at 12:26pm

Oh yes, I'm sorry, because Kirk talking like a robot makes for such a better movie going experience than him being an emotional jerk. I'm so sorry that the lack of a father figure can make you a prick because, you know, that's Basic Psychology 101. Oh wait, Luke Skywalker wasn't an ass because he had Uncle Owen to take him under his wing. Oh, and Anakin had Obi-Wen to look up to, but him becoming a (whiny, crybaby) jerk had more to do with his MOTHER being killed, so your whole arugement is null and void. Nice try, but FAIL. And yeah, I would hate a pair of movies, too, if they proved how lame the childhood hero I used looked up to really was.

-------------The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Posted By: moviecritic1994
Date Posted: January 05 2014 at 6:48pm

The thing with Stallone is this: I think a lot of people know he's not that great an actor. But just Like with Arnold Schwarzenegger, people only like Stallone because he can do action in a lot of films people consider Guilty Pleasures. This is both a good and bad thing. It's a good thing because I have seen both these guys in a lot of action films and they tend not to have a lot of dialogue that requires a lot of range.

The bad part of all this is it seems like a lot of people don't get Acting is an actual Art. People seem to think Acting is not a big deal and everyone can do it. In reality, people go to schools just to master this art that is actually really difficult to master. Guys like Schwarzenegger and Stallone mainly get a pass because their names often get related to words like "Cool" or Badass".

just Like with Arnold Schwarzenegger, people only like Stallone because he can do action in a lot of films people consider Guilty Pleasures.

One's performance has to be molded according to the movie. That's why funny performances have gotten Oscars. If an action movie requires the lead to be cool or badass, no problem. But you can't just hire a tough-looking guy. This is more obvious in THE EXPENDABLES movies: Jason Statham should be the lead because he has a real screen presence. Unlike Sly, Arnold, Jet Li and Bruce Willis, he doesn't just say his lines in a monotonous tone.

Here's what they each should do: Sly should stop playing it safe do more dramas. I thought he was as good in ROCKY BALBOA as he was in the 1st one. His excuse has always been "I want to give the people want they want". Then why were all of your 2013 movies box office flops? And why did you destroy ROCKY, JUDGE DREDD and TONY MANERO? As for Arnold, he has a lot less range. But at least he should stop trying to play everyday guys (TOTAL RECALL; JINGLE ALL THE WAY; COLLATERAL DAMAGE). He's not believable that way.

Originally posted by moviecritic1994

The bad part of all this is it seems like a lot of people don't get Acting is an actual Art. People seem to think Acting is not a big deal and everyone can do it. In reality, people go to schools just to master this art that is actually really difficult to master. Guys like Schwarzenegger and Stallone mainly get a pass because their names often get related to words like "Cool" or Badass".

Stallone: an iconic master of life, a successful model, a true self-made man!

Define he as an actor is too, I think he realizes it, he understood to be "just" a character, a type, the TOP of that part of the film world, but he has not figured out yesterday ... and this is its strength , his power, could not be otherwise! No one can stop him ... Rocky, Rambo, inseparable appendages of his being that will live forever. Sly did so that it never runs out their scope and importance ! He's not part of the "Mensa" for trivial reasons ... ^^

Stallone is NOT such a bad actor or rather... Stallone is NOT such a bad strategist!

In fact, his own determination and above all his vehemence did he become the RAZZ icon that we all love!

-------------

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: June 28 2014 at 4:32pm

I juste want someone one here to explain me ONE thing... in what... in EHAT is Stallone worse than Scwarzenegger?? Why?? Arnold IS the worst actor ever with Steven Seagal, Ben Affleck and Zac Efron... Honnestly, please... just explain me??!!

Posted By: TaRaN-RoD
Date Posted: June 28 2014 at 4:36pm

And come on... Jason Statham is an awful actor!!

Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 28 2014 at 4:55pm

Arnold and Jason Statham don't really have acting talent; what they have is charisma. Ben Affleck and Zac Efron aren't bad actors, they just need a good script. Steven Seagal, on the other hand, is an absolute hack so we agree on one thing.

Well you know that it is a little innapropriate from you to say that Arnold has more charisma than Sly in this case? Because it is totally not the fact... And Arnold should have won all the worst actor Razzies!